IACHR/Usa - The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recalls that the detention of child migrants arriving to the U.S. violates children's rights and the principle of the best interests of the child. (IACHR, ACLU Border Litigation Project). Radio Nizkor, 11Aug14

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has expressed its deep concern on the situation of unaccompanied children migrants that are arriving to the southern border of the United States of America.

In a June 20th press release, the IACHR states that "[A]ccording to publicly available information, between January 1 and May 31, 2014 the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended a record number of 47,017 unaccompanied children migrants along the southwest border of the United States. This number represents an almost 50% increase to-date from last year. Officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, previously estimating the arrival of 60,000 unaccompanied child migrants in 2014, have revised the figure, now expecting as many as 90,000. Of the 47,017 children apprehended thus far in 2014, the vast majority (46,188) are from the countries of El Salvador (9,850), Guatemala (11,479), Honduras (13,282), and Mexico (11,577), with the remaining (829) from other countries."

It also indicates that "[A] recent report released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, entitled Children on the Run, found that of children surveyed from Mexico and Central America who were in an irregular migratory situation in the United States, 58% indicated that they were 'forcibly displaced' due to: violence by organized armed criminal actors, including drug cartels and gangs; domestic abuse; and in the case of Mexico, forced recruitment into human smuggling networks.

"[O]nce these children arrive to the United States and are apprehended by the authorities, many of them are being kept in CBP detention for a longer time period than the established 72-hour maximum. Further, the Commission has received troubling information from human rights organizations about abuses suffered by children while in detention..."

"The Commission reminds all of the States in the region that the detention of a child due to his or her irregular migratory situation constitutes a violation of the rights of the child and is always against the principle of the best interests of the child..."

On the other hand, the widespread abuse of unaccompanied immigrant children at the hands of U.S. border officials led the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Border Litigation Project, Americans for Immigrant Justice, Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project, and the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project to file an administrative complaint, on June 11th, with the Department of Homeland Security.

According to the ACLU, "the complaint describes Border Patrol agents denying necessary medical care to children as young as five-months-old, refusing to provide diapers for infants, confiscating and not returning legal documents and personal belongings, making racially-charged insults and death threats, and strip searching and shackling children in three-point restraints during transport." The text emphasizes that abuses of unaccompanied children by immigration officials have been documented and reported to the Department of Homeland Security for years but the government has not implemented reforms or taken any action to hold agents accountable.

USA - State of Exception and the CIA's extra-judicial rendition and interrogation program. Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law, 03Apr14

The United States is implicated in a case currently pending before the European Court of Human Rights concerning two Guantánamo detainees who claim to have been tortured in Poland after an extraordinary rendition by the Central Intelligence Agency (the "CIA")

The applicants are Abd Al Rahim Hussayn Muhammad Al Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian national of Yemeni descent who was born in 1965; and Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, also known as Abu Zubaydah, a stateless Palestinian, who was born in 1971 in Saudi Arabia. Both men are currently detained in the Internment Facility at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba...

"Both applicants allege that they were victims of 'extraordinary renditions' by the CIA, that is, of apprehension and extrajudicial transfer to a secret detention site in Poland with the knowledge of the Polish authorities for the purpose of interrogation, during which they were tortured. Both men state that in December 2002 they were taken to Poland on board the same 'rendition plane'."

Both detainees' submissions are based in the so-called "Marty Reports", prepared by Swiss Senator Dick Marty, in 2006, 2007 and 2011, as rapporteur for the investigation conducted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe into allegations of secret detention facilities being run by the CIA in several Member States; they are also based on a report prepared by the CIA inspector general in 2004 on 'counterterrorism detention and interrogation activities' between September 2001 and October 2003. Their submissions also refer to a 2007 report by the International Committee for the Red Cross on the treatment of 'high value detainees' in CIA custody...

"The Marty Reports detail an intricate network of CIA detention and transfer in certain Council of Europe States. Among other things, the reports identify the secret detention centre in Poland as being located in the Stare Kiejkuty intelligence training base near the town of Szczytno in Northern Poland."

Mr Al Nashiri’s and Mr Husayn's complaints before the European Court of Human Rights relate to three principal issues: their torture, ill-treatment and incommunicado detention in Poland while in US custody; their transfer from Poland; and, Poland’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the events."

"More recently, evidence has emerged that the CIA paid $15 million in cash to the intelligence service of Poland in order to make use of a secret detention site there to interrogate al-Qaeda suspects..."

Also, the Senate Intelligence Committee has produced a 6,300-page study, not available to the public yet, on the CIA Detention and Interrogation Program. Its Chairman, Dianne Feinstein, spoke on the Senate floor on 11 March 2014 in order to clarify the information that was published by the press concerning the CIA's intrusion and search of the Senate Select Committee's computers as well as the committee's acquisition of a certain internal CIA document known as the Panetta Review.

The debate surrounding the CIA's interrogation program is being revisited...

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

cia

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:20:11

ENG

July 2013

USA - New report summarizes the available information on how the NSA operates. Radio Nizkor, 12Jul13

A new report from the Congressional Research Service entitled "NSA Surveillance Leaks: Background and Issues for Congress", summarizes for Congress what is publicly known about the two National Security Agency surveillance programs that were disclosed by Edward Snowden and reported in June 2013 by The Guardian and The Washington Post.

According to this report: "Since these programs were publicly disclosed over the course of two days in June, there has been confusion about what information is being collected and what authorities the National Security Agency (NSA) is acting under. This report clarifies the differences between the two programs and identifies potential issues that may help Members of Congress assess legislative proposals pertaining to NSA surveillance authorities."

"These programs arise from provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, they rely on separate authorities, collect different types of information, and raise different policy questions. For both programs, there is a tension between the speed and convenience with which the government can access data of possible intelligence value and the mechanisms intended to safeguard civil liberties. The first program collects and stores in bulk domestic phone records that some argue could be gathered to equal effect through more focused records requests. The second program targets the electronic communications of non-U.S. citizens but may incidentally collect information about Americans..."

Steven Aftergood, in charge of the Project on Government Secrecy of the Federation of American Scientists, states that "this report does not present any new factual material concerning the surveillance programs. But it identifies some outstanding questions about them — the word 'unclear' is used several times — and it formulates topics for congressional consideration".

Radio Nizkor has excerpted from this report the sections pertaining to: a) What Information Is Being Collected?, b) What Are the Legal Bases for the Collection? and, c) What Oversight Mechanisms Are in Place?, as these sections contain information on how the NSA operates these programs.

"'God we trust,' goes an old National Security Agency joke. 'All others we monitor'. [...]

While the Obama administration and Senate intelligence committee members defend the spying as crucial in its fight against terrorism, this is only the latest chapter in nearly a century of pressure on telecommunications companies to secretly cooperate with NSA and its predecessors. But as stunning technology advances allow more and more personal information to pass across those links, the dangers of the United States turning into a secret surveillance state increase exponentially.

The NSA was so flooded with billions of dollars from post-Sept. 11, 2001 budget increases that it went on a building spree and also expanded its eavesdropping capabilities enormously. Secret rooms were built in giant telecom facilities, such as AT&T's 10-story "switch" in San Francisco. There, mirror copies of incoming data and telephone cables are routed into rooms filled with special hardware and software to filter out email and phone calls for transmission to NSA for analysis. [...]

Today the NSA is the world's largest spy organization, encompassing tens of thousands of employees and occupying a city-size headquarters complex on Fort Meade in Maryland. But in 1920, its earliest predecessor, known as the Black Chamber, fit into a slim townhouse on Manhattan's East 37th Street.

World War One had recently ended, along with official censorship, and the Radio Communication Act of 1912 was again in effect. This legislation guaranteed the secrecy of electronic communications... To the Black Chamber, however, the bill represented a large obstacle to be overcome--illegally, if necessary.

So the Black Chamber chief, Herbert O. Yardley, and his boss in Washington, General Marlborough Churchill, head of the Military Intelligence Division, paid a visit to 195 Broadway in downtown Manhattan, headquarters of Western Union. This was the nation's largest telegram company - the email of that day... The two government officials took the elevator to the 24th floor for a secret meeting with Western Union's president, Newcomb Carlton. Their object was to convince him to grant them secret access to the private communications zapping through his company's wires.

It was easier achieved than Yardley had ever imagined... Yardley later described, "President Carlton seemed anxious to do everything he could for us.'"

Time and again over the decades, this pattern has been repeated. The NSA, or a predecessor, secretly entered into agreements with the country's major telecommunications companies and illegally gained access to Americans' private communications. [...]

Thus, for roughly 100 years, whenever the government knocked on the telecommunications industry's door and asked them to break the law and turn over millions upon millions of private communications, the telecoms complied.... But unlike with Yardley and the Black Chamber, the dangers today of secret cooperation between the telecom and Internet industry and the NSA are incomparable... We now live in an era when access to someone's email account and web searches can paint a more detailed picture of their life then most personal diaries. Secret agreements between intelligence agencies and communications companies should not be allowed in a democracy. There is too much at risk...

USA - U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against Shell in Nigeria. (CorpWatch, American Society of International Law). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law, 02May13

On April 17th, 2013, in a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit against Shell in Nigeria.

The lawsuit was brought by Esther Kiobel against the company for aiding and abetting the Nigerian government who executed her husband and 10 other activists in the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta.

Pratap Chatterjee, Executive Director of CorpWatch, in an article about this decision, explains that "the ruling effectively blocks other lawsuits against foreign multinationals for human rights abuse that have occurred overseas from being brought in U.S. courts."

"Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (Shell) was brought under the Alien Tort Statute, a U.S. law dating back to 1789, originally designed to combat piracy on the high seas - that has been used during the last 30 years as a vehicle to bring international law violations cases to U.S. federal courts.

Lawyers began using the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) as a tool in human rights litigation in 1979, when the family of 17-year-old Joel Filartiga, who was tortured and killed in Paraguay, sued the Paraguayan police chief responsible...

The new ruling limits the law to U.S citizens and entities.

'Corporations are often present in many countries and it would reach too far to say mere corporate presence suffices,' wrote John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, in the majority opinion. 'There is no indication that the ATS was passed to make the United States a uniquely hospitable forum for the enforcement of international norms.'

Stephen Breyer, another of the nine judges, agreed with Roberts in the decision but left the door open for some lawsuits. 'I would find jurisdiction under this statute where (1) the alleged tort occurs on American soil, (2) the defendant is an American national, or (3) the defendant’' conduct substantially and adversely affects an important American national interest,' wrote Breyer in a separate legal opinion. '(T)hat includes a distinct interest in preventing the United States from becoming a safe harbor (free of civil as well as criminal liability) for a torturer or other common enemy of mankind.'

To date no substantial lawsuits against multinationals for abuses overseas has been won on ATS grounds, although some have settled or plea bargained. In 1996 Doe v. Unocal, a lawsuit filed by ethnic Karen farmers against Unocal (now owned by Chevron) set a new precedent when a U.S. federal court ruled that corporations and their executive officers could be held legally responsible for crimes against humanity...

Many activists say that the decision will set back human rights causes... Other lawyers drew a measure of hope from the fact that the Supreme Court decision did not exclude all lawsuits against multinationals overseas in U.S. courts.

'This ruling is not a grant of immunity from liability,' write the lawyers of the Center for Constitutional Rights who won the Filártiga case. '(T)hose cases brought against defendants, including corporations, whose actions 'touch and concern the territory of the United States... with sufficient force' should remain on notice they can still be held accountable for their abuses outside the U.S."

As Curtis Bradley, Professor at Duke Law School, writes for the American Society of International Law's Insight, "Nevertheless, ATS litigation will almost certainly have a much narrower scope going forward. Of course, the presumption against extraterritoriality is only a presumption, and it is open to Congress to amend the ATS to make it expressly extraterritorial if it wishes to do so."

File
name

Real Media format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

shell

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:25:24

ENG

April 2013

USA - The Justice Department's White Paper on Targeted Killing of US Citizens. Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law, 24Apr13

On February 8th, 2013, the Department of Justice released –several days after it had been leaked to the press– an official copy of its White Paper on lethal targeting of Americans to Freedom of Information Act requesters, including the Federation of American Scientists, which filed a FOIA request on February 6th, 2013, and the online news publication Truthout.org, which did so on August 10, 2012.

"The 16-page memo, entitled 'Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or An Associated Force', provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens."

"The document is based on a still-classified memo on targeted killings of U.S. citizens prepared by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. It does not discuss any specific target and emphasizes that it does not go into the specific thresholds of evidence that are deemed sufficient."

"At its heart, the memo contends that killing a U.S. citizen who is a "senior operational leader in al-Qaeda or an associated force" is lawful under three conditions:

(1) [A]n informed, high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States;
(2) capture is infeasible and the United States continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and
(3) the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles."

"It adopts an elastic definition of an "imminent" threat, saying it is not necessary for a specific attack to be in process when a target is found if the target is generally engaged in terrorist activities aimed at the United States. And it asserts that courts should not play a role in reviewing or restraining such decisions..."

Steven Aftergood, from the Project on Government Secrecy of the Federation of American Scientists, informs that "the belated release of the White Paper may have been dictated by tactical considerations intended to evade an ACLU FOIA lawsuit for related records", as suggested by Marcy Wheeler at Emptywheel.

This program collects the reactions of civil rights organizations such as the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as the comments of some scholars, like Marjorie Cohn (Professor of Law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA) or David Kaye (a clinical professor of law at UC Irvine School of Law and a State Department lawyer from 1995 to 2005), who analyzes the international law issues addressed or implicated by the White Paper...

File
name

Real Media format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

except

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:25:01

ENG

October 2012

USA - Supreme Court Urged to Uphold Review of Wiretapping Programs. (Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, Electronic Privacy Information Center). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law, 18Oct12.

"In its new term that began on October 1st, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether to affirm the right of journalists and human rights organizations to challenge the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act, or FAA.

The FISA Amendments Act authorizes the collection of a broad swath of public communications without a warrant (though not the intentional targeting of the communications of any particular U.S. person). As such, critics say, it jeopardizes freedom of communication with individuals abroad.

At issue is whether the plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, have the 'standing' to bring the case. A lower court said they did not, but an appeals court said they did. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide the case, which is captioned Amnesty et al v. Clapper.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed an amicus brief urging the Court to affirm standing on grounds that the plaintiffs have established a reasonable concern about the security of their communications, and that existing oversight mechanisms are inadequate."

"At issue in Clapper is whether a group of journalists, attorneys, and non-profit organizations can challenge the US government's interception of their international communications...

The Clapper case tests whether economic and professional costs related to the reasonable fear of being monitored under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act constitute an injury sufficient to give the plaintiffs 'standing' to challenge the law under Article III of the US Constitution. The case also has broad implications for public oversight of surveillance activity...

EPIC's amicus brief for the Supreme Court argues that the government's ability to collect Americans' international communications is nearly 'unbounded,' and that the public may 'reasonably' fear that their private communications will be collected under FISA due to the lack of adequate public reporting and oversight."

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

fisa

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:06:33

ENG

April 2012

USA - US Supreme Court unanimously holds that the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device by the police violated the Fourth Amendment. (Electronic Privacy Information Center - EPIC). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law, 11Apr12.

On January 23rd, 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously held in U.S. v. Jones that the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device by the police violated the Fourth Amendment.

The Court said that a warrant is required where, as here, the government obtains information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area, like a car.

The questions presented were:

1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment.

2) Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.

The government engages in this investigatory technique frequently, and the federal circuits are divided on whether the practice violates the Fourth Amendment...

Justice Scalia delivered the Opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, and Sotomayor, which held that the Government's installation of a GPS device on a target's vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The majority opinion made clear that the Government's physical occupation of private property for the purpose of obtaining information, would have been considered a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.

Justice Scalia stressed that the holding, while narrow, made clear that the Fourth Amendment, at a minimum, protects from trespassory government searches...

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

gps

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:11:53

ENG

January 2012

USA - U.S. Anti-Corruption Statute at Risk. (Earth Rights International). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law, 30Jan12.

In view of the current efforts in Washington, D.C., to amend the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a law that forbids U.S.-based companies from bribing foreign officials, over 30 civil society organizations and socially responsible investors sent letters to all U.S. House and Senate members on January 12th, 2012, urging them to reject proposals to amend and weaken the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

"This letter was drafted in response to intense lobbying by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who reportedly spent $700,000 in 2011 in efforts to cut back on anti-bribery protections found in the law.

Based on this intense lobbying effort, legislators on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress are considering introducing legislation that would restrict U.S. federal prosecutors' ability to investigate and punish foreign bribery.

The legislators' proposals range from the wholesale adoption of the Chamber's proposals – which would shield companies from liability for the acts of their subsidiaries, allow the bribery of certain types of government agents, and reward willful ignorance of the law – to more modest amendments that would seek sharper, narrower definition of important terms and provide a minimum threshold under which bribery would not be prosecutable.

Even these less extreme efforts, however, would open the FCPA to the unpredictable horse-trading of congressional politics and turn a sterling record of U.S. leadership in the global fight against corruption on its head.

Most glaringly, none of the proposed amendments would, as their proponents suggest, provide greater legal certainty or cost savings to U.S. businesses.

Profs. David Kennedy and Dan Danielsen, the authors of a new report entitled Busting Bribery: Sustaining the Global Momentum of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, explain that the FCPA has played an important role in combatting bribery on a global scale and provided a level playing field for U.S. businesses.

The Chamber's proposed amendments, far from being 'modest' or aimed at 'restoring the balance,' would badly undercut anti-corruption enforcement efforts and provide what Prof. Danielsen called a "license to commit intentional acts of bribery.'

Moreover, the proposed amendments provide standards that are no clearer than those currently in use. And they would not in any event help to streamline companies' compliance programs, as stricter standards than the FCPA are already in place in other countries, like the United Kingdom, and compliance programs are generally geared toward the most exacting standards to which a company is subject..."

In their letter, the organizations stress that "This would harm our ability to bring other nations up to the emerging global standard set forth in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, a standard that has arisen in part because of the FCPA itself. Such amendments would also have the effect of negatively impacting democratic principles and human rights in countries around the world as the fight against corruption is also a fight to ensure the promotion and protection of human rights."

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

fcpa

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:08:33

ENG

USA/EU - The proposed EU-US Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement breaches data protection, due process and other fundamental rights. Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law, 30Jan12.

On 17 November 2011, U.S. and EU officials initialled a proposed agreement to authorize airlines to forward passenger name record data to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Although the agreement cannot take effect without the approval of the European Parliament and the Council, the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) could read the proposed agreement only in a sealed room where they could not take notes or make copies.

The complete text on which the European Parliament will vote has finally been made public, revealing a failure to address the concerns raised by the Parliament and continued shortfalls in data protection, due process, and protection of fundamental rights.

In its resolution of 5 May 2010, the Parliament said that the Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement should take the form of a treaty, recognize the fundamental right to freedom of movement, prohibit the use of PNR data for data mining or profiling, and take into consideration "PNR data which may be available from sources not covered by international agreements, such as computer reservation systems located outside the EU."

The proposed agreement does not meet these criteria, and does not mention any of these issues...

In view of the upcoming vote on the EU-USA PNR Agreement, the Austrian Organization for the Use of the Internet and NoPNR.org, with the endorsement, among others, of The Identity Project, Friends of Privacy USA, Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights, Statewatch and Privacy International, sent an Open Letter to the European Parliament asking its Members to consider the following issues for their decision on the EU-US PNR Agreement:

The proposed agreement will not result in improved legal security for citizens

There is no access control or access logging

The proposed agreement does not meet the conditions set by the European Parliament

There is no appropriate information to travelers

This program has been prepared with information provided by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, European Digital Rights, The Identity Project and StateWatch.

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

pnrdata7

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:09:39

ENG

USA - The National Defense Authorization Act for 2012: A Great Threat to Americans' Civil Liberties and Rights. (The New York Times, Michel Chossudovsky for the Centre for Research on Globalisation, ACLU, The Center for Constitutional Rights, and E. D. Kain for Forbes). Radio Nizkor, 24Jan12.

"With minimal media debate, at a time when Americans were celebrating the New Year, the 'National Defense Authorization Act' (H.R. 1540) was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The actual signing took place in Hawaii on the 31st of December.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorises the arbitrary and indefinite military detention of American citizens.

According to Obama's "signing statement", the threat of Al Qaeda to the Security of the Homeland constitutes a justification for repealing fundamental rights and freedoms. The relevant provisions pertaining to civil rights were carefully esconded in a short section of a document of more than 500 pages.

President Obama says he disagrees with the NDAA but he signs it into law: '[I have] serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists' , the President wrote. He acknowledges that certain provisions of the Act (contained in Subtitle D--Counterterrorism) are unacceptable.

The fact of the matter is that both the Executive and the US Congress are complicit in the drafting of Subtitle D. In this regard, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) revealed that it was the White House which had asked the Senate Armed Services Committee 'to remove language from the bill that would have prohibited U.S. citizens' military detention without due process'.

President Obama justifies the signing of the NDAA for 2012 as a means to combating terrorism, as part of a 'counter-terrorism' agenda. But in substance, any American opposed to the policies of the US government can --under the provisions of the this Act-- be labelled a 'suspected terrorist' and arrested under military detention... The signing statement does not in any way invalidate or modify the actual signing by President Obama of the NDAA into law. It does not have any bearing on the implementation/enforcement of the Law...'

The 'most important traditions and values' in derogation of The Bill of Rights and the US Constitution have indeed been repealed, effective on New Year's Day, January 1st 2012..."

On the other hand, Forbes contributor E. D. Kain explains that "The proof that this bill does not expressly exempt U.S. citizens or those captured on U.S. soil is that amendments offered by Sen. Feinstein providing expressly for those exemptions were rejected. The 'compromise' was to preserve the status quo by including the provision that the bill is not intended to alter it with regard to American citizens, but that's because proponents of broad detention powers are confident that the status quo already permits such detention."

"In part the National Defense Authorization Act helps to preserve the status quo established a decade ago with the original provisions in the PATRIOT Act giving the government broad new powers in the so-called War on Terror.

In part the bill expands those powers, codifying the use of indefinite detention of foreign nationals and possibly US citizens arrested abroad and at home. In part the bill expands the use of the US military on domestic soil, at once complicating anti-terrorism strategies at home and raising serious questions about the role of the military in law enforcement.

All these things should make Americans - and not just Americans - very nervous about the preservation of their civil liberties. That precarious balance between security and liberty is looking ever more tilted toward the former and away from the latter. The History of Anti-Terrorism is Bad News for Civil Liberties..."

"US authorities have resumed their 'Operation in Our Sites' in order to attempt to fight counterfeit and piracy-related websites..

The introduction of draft bills, such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) aims at providing a legal basis for domain names and IP address seizures.

SOPA's broad definitions could indeed mean that no online resource in the global Internet would be outside US jurisdiction.

In response to these legislative proposals and repeated unilateral measures against European websites, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on 17 November 2011 in preparation of the EU/US summit stressing 'the need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names.' The joint EU/US summit declaration published on 28 November 2011 indeed says: "We share a commitment to a single, global Internet, and will resist unilateral efforts to weaken the security, reliability, or independence of its operations".

However, despite the big show of opposition to the US bills and the Parliament's actions, Internet filtering and blocking schemes like SOPA and PIPA are still on the agenda on the other side of the Atlantic claiming worldwide jurisdiction for domain names and IP addresses.

According to recent reports, attempts to terminate the Internet's end-to-end architecture also seem to get even closer to the core of the Internet. This sort of access restriction is an experiment with key functions of the Internet, increasing the risk of fragmentation of the global Internet and as one co-chair of the DNS Working group of the European Regional Internet Registry stated, this gives restrictive tools 'to the bad guys'..."

On November 15th, 2011, a collection of international civil society and human rights organizations sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Representative, Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Ranking Member Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan).

The groups called into question several provisions of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) that would have 'serious implications for international civil and human rights' and the integrity of the global internet. "By imposing technical changes to the open internet while eroding due process, SOPA introduces a deeply concerning degree of legal uncertainty into the internet economy, particularly for businesses and users internationally.

Business cannot be conducted online when international users and businesses do not have faith that their access to payments, domain names, and advertising will be available, raising challenges to economic development and innovation. This is as unacceptable to the international community as it would be if a foreign country were to impose similar measures on the United States.

The provisions in SOPA on DNS filtering in particular will have severe consequences worldwide...

By instituting this practice in the United States, SOPA sends an unequivocal message to other nations that it is acceptable to censor speech on the global Internet. Additionally, Internet engineers have argued in response to the Protect IP Act, DNS filtering would break the internet into separate regional networks.

Worse still, the circumvention technology that can be used to access information under repressive Internet regimes would be outlawed under SOPA, the very same technology whose development is funded by the State Department..."

This program also addresses the problems being faced by the the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as regards the introduction of new top-level domains (TLDs). Larry Strickling, head of the US National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA), said his agency is “seriously considering” using the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) – the entity administering the domain name system root zone currently managed by ICANN under a contract with the US government – to push for accountability and transparency of ICANN. To some, this might be considered a threat. For ICANN, this could mean losing core functions, such as DNS root zone management, including the TLDs and ccTLDs (country-code top-level domains, like .uk), internet protocol address allocation management on the global level, or protocol assignment...

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

sopa

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:19:48

ENG

December 2011

USA/EU - "Outside the United States, Extraordinary Rendition on Trial". (Alka Pradhan for the American Society of International Law). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University Washington College of Law, 16Dec11.

"Three pending cases before the European Court of Human Rights highlight allegedly illegal acts committed by European countries in connection with the U.S. extraordinary rendition program.

The first, filed by Khalid El-Masri in September 2009, claims unlawful abduction and mistreatment by the Macedonian Ministry of the Interior.

The second was filed by Abd Al-Rahim al Nashiri for alleged mistreatment during his detention at a secret prison (“black site”) in Poland...

The third, most recent case was filed against Lithuania by Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (“Abu Zubaydah”) for alleged secret detention and torture by CIA agents committed at a Lithuanian black site...

El-Masri’s petition alleges that Macedonia violated Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to intervene during his torture and inhuman treatment by CIA agents in Macedonia; by allowing him to be transported to Afghanistan with the knowledge that he would be tortured and inhumanly treated at the destination; and by failing to investigate his arrest, detention, and transfer to the CIA by Macedonian authorities.

Additionally, El-Masri claims that his detention by Macedonian authorities for twenty-three days, along with his transfer to CIA agents, violated his right to liberty and security of person (Article 5), and that the failure by the Macedonian criminal courts to hear his case violated his right to remedy guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention.

Regarding Al Nashiri, his petition alleges violations of Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), 5 (liberty and security of person), 8 (right to private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), and 13 (right to remedy) of the Convention, and Protocol 6 to the Convention (abolition of the death penalty)...

If the Court accepts El-Masri’s and/or al Nashiri’s applications, both the applicants and the member states will be invited to present their claims before the Court. Should the Court find that a member state has violated the Convention, it may issue a declaratory judgment, order payment of damages and legal costs, or implement other measures of reparation.

Chamber judgments may be appealed to the “Grand Chamber,” whose judgments are final. Because the United States is not a party to the European Court of Human Rights, it is not named in the applications. However, if the United States decides to participate in the proceedings, the Court has the discretion to allow a third party to intervene in the form of written comments..."

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

rendition

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:11:45

ENG

November 2011

USA - The War Powers Resolution should be revised. (Chris Economou, International Affairs Review, 17Oct11). Radio Nizkor, 29Nov11.

"Before U.S. President Barack Obama committed American forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission in Libya last spring, he neglected to provide an adequate reason for America's involvement or seek approval from Congress. [...]

Obama's failure to consult with Congress creates a dangerous precedent that denies Congress a say in deciding when and how U.S. military forces should be used and instead places these decisions into the hands of just one person - the president. [...]

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare wars and fund the military. However, the Constitution simultaneously empowers the president to carry out wars as commander-in-chief. Both branches of government have long debated this dichotomy of war powers.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 meant to end this debate by requiring closer collaboration between the branches when the United States enters into a conflict. [...]

Passed over a presidential veto, the War Powers Resolution means to serve as a check on the president's ability to commit U.S. forces to lengthy military engagements without approval from Congress.

Since the start of U.S. involvement in NATO's Libya mission, President Obama has neglected the War Powers Resolution by denying that the conflict is actually a war. [...]

Considering that America provided the bulk of NATO's military capabilities and funding in Libya, this was as much America's war as it was NATO's.

Therefore, Obama should have consulted with and sought approval from Congress and adhered to the 60-day deadline, as the Resolution requires.

To prevent future presidents from ignoring Congress' role in military conflicts, the War Powers Resolution should be revised to make it more specific and binding..."

USA/Col - U.S. aid implicated in abuses of power in Colombia. (Karen DeYoung, Claudia J. Duque and Juan Forero for The Washington Post). Radio Nizkor, 29Aug11

"The Obama administration often cites Colombia’s thriving democracy as proof that U.S. assistance, know-how and commitment can turn around a potentially failed state under terrorist siege...

But new revelations in long-running political scandals under former president Alvaro Uribe, a close U.S. ally throughout his eight-year tenure, have implicated American aid, and possibly U.S. officials, in egregious abuses of power and illegal actions by the Colombian government under the guise of fighting terrorism and drug smuggling.

American cash, equipment and training, supplied to elite units of the Colombian intelligence service over the past decade to help smash cocaine-trafficking rings, were used to carry out spying operations and smear campaigns against Supreme Court justices, Uribe’s political opponents and civil society groups, according to law enforcement documents obtained by The Washington Post and interviews with prosecutors and former Colombian intelligence officials.

The revelations are part of a widening investigation by the Colombian attorney general’s office against the Department of Administrative Security, or DAS. Six former high-ranking intelligence officials have confessed to crimes, and more than a dozen other agency operatives are on trial. Several of Uribe’s closest aides have come under scrutiny, and Uribe is under investigation by a special legislative commission...

Some of those charged or under investigation have described the importance of U.S. intelligence resources and guidance, and say they regularly briefed embassy “liaison” officials on their intelligence-gathering activities. “We were organized through the American Embassy,” said William Romero, who ran the DAS’s network of informants and oversaw infiltration of the Supreme Court. Like many of the top DAS officials in jail or facing charges, he received CIA training. Some were given scholarships to complete coursework on intelligence-gathering at American universities...

One unit dependent on CIA aid, according to the testimony of former DAS officials in depositions, was the National and International Observations Group.

Set up to root out ties between foreign operatives and Colombian guerrillas, it turned its attention to the Supreme Court after magistrates began investigating the president’s cousin, then-Sen. Mario Uribe, said a former director, German Ospina, in a deposition to prosecutors. The orders came “from the presidency; they wanted immediate results,” Ospina told prosecutors.

Another unit that operated for eight months in 2005, the Group to Analyze Terrorist Organization Media, assembled dossiers on labor leaders, broke into their offices and videotaped union activists. The United States provided equipment and tens of thousands of dollars, according to an internal DAS report, and the unit’s members regularly met with an embassy official they remembered as 'Chris Sullivan...'

Myles Frechette, the U.S. ambassador to Colombia from 1994 to 1997, said that even in his tenure American officials believed that DAS units were tainted by corruption and linked to traffickers. But he said the embassy needed a partner to develop intelligence on drug smugglers and guerrillas..."

"In the upcoming Super Committee deficit reduction negotiations, most Democrats believe they
must order their priorities to reflect their values and stay on message. Their first choice for
debt reduction should be increased tax revenues, second would be cuts to the Pentagon’s
bloated budget, and third would be cuts to domestic spending, whether discretionary or
mandatory (entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare

Theoretically, the threat of cuts to national security spending, which will go into effect if no
Super Committee deal is reached, gives Democrats leverage over hawkish Republicans to
agree to increased tax revenues. Give up that leverage by saying that you’d prefer cuts to
entitlement spending over cuts to the Defense Department, and you’ve given Republicans
cover to claim that cutting entitlements while achieving no Democratic priorities is a fair offer.

So why would any Democrat, particularly a prominent member of the Obama administration,
undercut the Democrats’ bargaining position by saying entitlement cuts are preferable to
Defense cuts? It’s unclear, but that is what Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is doing.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, “Panetta said that the roughly half a trillion in additional
cuts in Defense Department spending that would go into effect if Congress fails to enact a
separate savings package by the end of the year would be ‘unacceptable.’ Any further defense
cuts ‘is going to damage national security.’”

Later, Panetta took to his department’s web site to reiterate the point. As foreign policy expert
Michael Cohen explains, “If the committee fails to reach an agreement and across-the-board
defense cuts are immediately put into effect Republicans can use a Democratic Secretary of
Defense’s own words to argue that Congressional Democrats have weakened national
security.”...

The facts do not support his claim. The U.S. spends more than four times as much in absolute dollars, never mind per capita, than its nearest competitor, China. Just behind China rank longstanding U.S. allies such as the United Kingdom (third) and France (fourth)..."

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

defensecuts

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:06:44

ENG

ESCR - The Missing Truth in the BP Oil Disaster. (Kerry Kennedy, president of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights). Radio Nizkor, 23Aug11.

"More than a year after a private company operating in public waters retched 170 million
gallons of crude and two million gallons of toxic dispersants into the Gulf of Mexico, creating
an environmental catastrophe, we still lack reliable statistics on the BP oil disaster's impact on
the health of residents.

I recently spent several days travelling across the Gulf Coast region of Louisiana, Mississippi
and Alabama, speaking with fishermen, oystermen, shrimpers, restaurant workers, and
neighbours about the illnesses they have suffered in the wake of this calamity...

Our delegation met two brothers who said their families had been fishing for five generations.
Both they and their family members have endured excruciating lung, skin, and digestive-tract
ailments in the wake of the BP disaster. When one man's infant grandson ran a high fever, his
daughter-in-law panicked and brought the child to the emergency room. Self-employed and
uninsured, he faced a bill of 2,300 dollars. With shrimp yields the lowest in memory, he
wonders how he will pay...

Many of those who sought care have been belittled when they've mentioned BP, and dismissed
as delusional or depressed. We heard dozens of people across the region talk about similar health problems and obstacles
to care. There are many reasons. The full spectrum of chemicals used in the dispersants was made public in June 2011, only
after requests consistently denied led to extensive litigation...

First responders to the 9/11 tragedy did not have to prove causation in order to get treatment,
they only had to show they were in the vicinity of the terrorist attack. Similarly, the
150,000-strong cleanup crew who sacrificed themselves, and their families and neighbours
who live along the Gulf Coast should not have to prove that their symptoms are caused by
BP's catastrophe, only that they were there...

It's time for us to provide the families of the Gulf Coast with the health care they deserve."

USA/Mex - US Court Documents Claim Sinaloa "Cartel" is Protected by US Government. (Bill Conroy for The Narcosphere-Narconews). Radio Nizkor, 23Aug11.

The son of a heavy hitter in a powerful Mexican drug trafficking organization has filed explosive legal pleadings in federal court in Chicago accusing the US government of cutting a deal with the the "Sinaloa Cartel" that gave its leadership "carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago and the rest of the United States."

The source of that allegation is Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, the son of Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada Garcia, one of the purported top leaders of the Sinaloa drug-trafficking organization — a major Mexican-based importer of weapons and exporter of drugs.

The top capo of the Sinaloa drug organization, named after the Pacific Coast Mexican state where it is based, is Joaquin Guzman Loera (El Chapo) — who escaped from a maximum security prison in Mexico in 2001, only days before he was slated to be extradited to the United States. Chapo has since gone on to build one of the most powerful drug "cartels" in Mexico. With the death of Osama Bin Laden in May, Chapo (a Spanish nickname meaning "shorty") jumped to the top of the FBI’s "Most Wanted" persons list. He also made Forbes Magazine’s 2010 list of "The World's Most Powerful People."

Zambada Niebla, himself a key player in the Sinaloa organization, was arrested in Mexico City in March 2009 and last February extradited to the United States to stand trial on narco-trafficking-related charges...

Zambada Niebla also claims to be an asset of the US government. His allegation was laid out originally in a two-page court pleading filed in late March with the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.

The latest allegations being advanced by Zambada Niebla, who is now being held in solitary confinement in a jail cell in Chicago, are laid out in motions filed late this week [July 29, 2011] in federal court. Those pleadings spell out the supposed cooperative relationship between the US Department of Justice and its various agencies, including DEA and the FBI, and the leaders of the “Sinaloa Cartel” — including Zambada Niebla.
That alleged relationship was cultivated through a Mexican attorney, Humberto Loya Castro, whom Zambada Niebla claims is a Sinaloa Cartel member and 'a close confidante of Joaquin Guzman Loera (Chapo)...'
Zambada Niebla’s pleadings also reference the controversial U.S Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) weapons-trafficking interdiction program Fast and Furious — an operation, now the subject of Congressional hearings, that allegedly allowed some 2,000 guns to be smuggled across the US/Mexican border under ATF’s watch. Zambada Niebla contends that Fast and Furious is yet another example of the US government’s complicity in the carnage of the drug war..."

USA - The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago Rules Rumsfeld Can Be Held Liable for Torture of U.S. Citizens in War Zones. (Government Accountabilty Project; Inter Press Service; Vance v. Rumsfeld, Nos. 10-1687, 10-2442; Equipo Nizkor). Radio Nizkor, 16Aug11.

On August 8th, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago in the case Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel v. Donald Rumsfeld and The United States of America, ruled that two American citizens can continue with their lawsuit holding former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally responsible for their alleged torture.

Both plaintiffs worked as contractors in Iraq and were wrongfully detained and subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" by American military officers.

"The Court agreed with several rulings of a lower court regarding the case. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit found that Vance and Ertel 'alleged in sufficient detail facts supporting Secretary Rumsfeld's personal responsibility for the alleged torture,' 'that Secretary Rumsfeld is not entitled to qualified immunity on the pleadings,' and that 'a Bivens remedy is available for the alleged torture of civilian U.S. citizens by U.S. military personnel in a war zone.' (Bivens remedies allow for citizens to sue for damages for constitutional violations committed by federal agents.)"

On Apr. 16, 2006, two U.S. contractors in Iraq's Red Zone were handcuffed, blindfolded and transported to Camp Cropper, a U.S. military facility located a few miles from Baghdad International Airport, where they were detained as security internees.

Held without a trial or court hearing and tortured, the plaintiffs are suing for damages rendered against them in Camp Cropper, where Rumsfeld and several other unnamed officials allegedly "developed, authorized and used harsh interrogation techniques on them", thus violating their basic civil, constitutional and human rights...

Out of many suits brought against Rumsfeld over the torture of detainees in Iraq, Vance is one of only two that has been allowed to proceed... On August 2, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in Washington DC, upheld the validity of a constitutional rights claim by Doe against Rumsfeld for his role in the torturing and illegal imprisonment of Doe, a U.S. citizen who was working as a translator in Iraq.

The Vance-Ertel case exposes the myriad links between private contractors, U.S. forces, U.S. government officials and intelligence agencies that often converge in the dark cells of detention centres such as Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and Camp Cropper...

Upon analysing whether plaintiffs' allegations of torture entail a violation of their constitutional right to substantive due process, the court said that "The Supreme Court 'has long held that certain interrogation techniques, either in isolation or as applied to the unique characteristics of a particular suspect, are so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be condemned under the Due Process Clause.'"

The court rejected the claim that government officials should be above the law, stating in its final decision, "We see no persuasive justification in ... case law or otherwise for Rumsfeld's most sweeping argument, which would deprive civilian U.S. citizens of a civil judicial remedy for torture or even cold-blooded murder by federal officials and soldiers, at any level, in a war zone."

"Given the totality of the plaintiffs' allegations, that they were interrogated with physical violence and threats, were kept in extremely cold cells without adequate clothing, were continuously deprived of sleep..., a reasonable official in Secretary Rumsfeld's position in 2006 would have known that this amounted to unconstitutional treatment of a civilian U.S. citizen detainee."

The court also stated that "The wrongdoing alleged here violates the most basic terms of the constitutional compact between our government and the citizens of this country..."

"On December 6th 2010, 25 indigenous plaintiffs from the Peruvian Amazon, members of the Achuar indigenous group, won their appeal in the landmark human rights and environmental contamination lawsuit against U.S. oil giant Occidental Petroleum, also known as Oxy, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the case should be heard in Los Angeles, Oxy’s hometown.

A district court judge had previously ruled that the case should be litigated in Peru, but the Ninth Circuit disagreed, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed in federal court.

The lawsuit accuses Oxy of causing severe injuries by knowingly dumping a daily average of 850,000 barrels of toxic wastewater into the tropical rainforest inhabited by the indigenous Achuar people of northern Peru over a 30-year period, as well as inducing acid rain from gas flaring, and improperly storing waste in unlined pits." The plaintiffs allege that these outdated practices caused widespread lead and cadmium poisoning, among other serious health impacts...

"The Achuar case, Maynas Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum, was filed in May 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In April 2008, the district court ruled that the case should be heard in Peru under the legal doctrine of forum non conveniens..." The plaintiffs and their counsel appealed that ruling and now the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision.

Accordingly with previous jurisprudence, the Ninth Circuit considered forum non conveniens "an exceptional tool to be employed sparingly," and not a "doctrine that compels plaintiffs to choose the optimal forum for their claim"

Plaintiffs include 25 members of the Achuar indigenous group dependent for their existence upon the rainforest lands and waterways along the river, and Amazon Watch, a nonprofit Montana corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants includes Washington, DC-based EarthRights International, the Venice, CA firm Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman & Harrison LLP, and San Francisco lawyer Natalie Bridgeman.

Usa - Statement by Senator Edward M. Kennedy on Restoring the Rule
of Law and Repairing the
Supreme Court Nomination Process. (Alliance for Justice). Radio Nizkor, 12Apr07

Senator Kennedy gave a major policy speech on "Restoring the Rule of Law and Repairing the Supreme Court Nomination
Process" at an event organized by the Alliance for Justice on March 29, 2007. Said event was held at the National Press Club.

He stated that "At the heart of many of the serious challenges we face is the Bush administration's lack of respect for the
rule of law. The administration views our system of justice as merely another arena for furthering its rightwing ideology. It sees the
Senate's constitutional role in confirming those who enforce our laws as a road block to be circumvented whenever possible.

The ongoing scandal over the firing of United States attorneys is a stunning example. Using a stealth provision slipped
into the Patriot Act reauthorization, the administration has replaced US attorneys without Senate review..."

Usa - CIA expands operational file secrecy and Department of
Defense seeks a broad new exemption from FOIA. (Project on Government Secrecy of the Federation of American Scientists).
Radio Nizkor with the
collaboration of the Schell Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School, 07May06

"The Central Intelligence Agency conducted a review of its "operational files" last year, as it is required to do every
ten years under the CIA Information Act of 1984, to see if any such files could have their "operational" designation
rescinded, making them subject to Freedom of Information Act requests... But instead of removing any files from operational
status, as contemplated by the 1984 Act, the CIA added nearly two dozen new categories of files that will now be exempt from
search and review under the FOIA, according to a newly disclosed report to Congress."

On the other hand, "The Department of Defense is seeking a broad new exemption from the Freedom of Information Act for
unclassified information relating to weapons of mass destruction. According to the proposed legislation, 'Examples of such
information could include ... formulas and design descriptions of lethal and incapacitating materials; maps, designs,
security/emergency response plans, and vulnerability assessments for facilities containing weapons of mass destruction
materials.' The proposal is puzzling because most such information, including that which is not classified, is already exempt
from the FOIA..."

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

secrecy

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:12:51

ENG

Usa - U.S. to switch from a "data preservation" to a EU-like "data
retention" system that could pose serious privacy risks. (Electronic Privacy Information Center - EPIC). Radio Nizkor with
the
collaboration of the Schell Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School, 07May06

The Electronic Privacy Information Center, EPIC, informs that Members of Congress are calling for laws in the United
States that would compel Internet service providers and telecom companies to store information about their customers for
months or years and make those records available to the police upon request...

To date, law enforcement has not been able to show that retaining all users' data helps to solve criminal cases. Traffic
data is seldom essential in criminal investigations and data retained for longer than 6 months is rarely useful.

Retaining all customer data could also raise serious security and privacy risks..."

Usa - In a Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit, Former Top Official
in the US Justice Department Concludes that Surveillance Program was Illegal. (Electronic Privacy Information Center).
Radio Nizkor with the
collaboration of the Schell Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School, 23Apr06

"In December 2005, the New York Times reported that President Bush secretly issued an executive order in 2002 authorizing
the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless surveillance of international telephone and Internet communications
on American soil. President Bush acknowledged the existence of the NSA surveillance program and vowed that its activities
would continue.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center - EPIC- submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the NSA and four
Department of Justice components just hours after the existence of the warrantless surveillance program was first reported.
Noting the extraordinary public interest in the program — and its potential illegality — EPIC asked the agencies to expedite
the processing of the requests...

Documents obtained by EPIC earlier in March 2006, through the FOIA litigation, reveal that a former top official in the
Justice Department doubted that the domestic surveillace program was allowed under the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Resolution..."

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

epic

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:10:07

ENG

December 2005

Usa - U.S. secret detention facilities in Europe catch the
attention of the Council of Europe. (The New York Times; Human Rights Watch; Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly).
Radio Nizkor with the
collaboration of the Schell Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School, 03Dec05

"When the Bush administration rewrote the rules for dealing with prisoners after 9/11, needlessly scrapping the Geneva
Conventions and American law, it ignored the objections of lawyers for the armed services. Now, heedless of the lessons of Abu
Ghraib, the civilians are once again running over the people in uniform. Tim Golden and Eric Schmitt reported yesterday in The
Times that the administration is blocking the Pentagon from adopting the language of the Geneva Conventions to set rules for
handling prisoners in the so-called war on terror...

Dana Priest reports in The Washington Post that even the Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine operators are getting
nervous about the network of secret prisons they have around the world - including, of all places, at a Soviet-era compound in
Eastern Europe."

"Human Rights Watch has conducted independent research on the existence of secret detention locations that corroborates the
Washington Post's allegations that there were detention facilities in Eastern Europe." Specifically, Human Rights Watch "have
collected information that CIA airplanes traveling from Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004 made direct flights to remote airfields
in Poland and Romania."

In turn, On November 7th. 2005, the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE)
appointed its Chairperson Dick Marty (from Switzerland, member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe) as
rapporteur to examine the subject of alleged secret CIA detention centres...

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

prisons

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:13:57

ESL/SPA

November 2005

Usa - Graham amendment passes, stripping federal courts of
jurisdiction to hear applications for habeas corpus. (Center for Constitutional Rights). Radio Nizkor with the
collaboration of the Schell Center for International Human Rights at
Yale Law School, 15Nov05

"The Bush Administration, through an amendment introduced by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, has successfully
stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to hear applications for habeas corpus brought by those unilaterally declared enemy
combatants without any process and held by the U.S. indefinitely throughout the world and even in the United States.

This was accomplished by means of a last minute amendment to the Military Authorization Bill, brought up on the floor of
the Senate without committee deliberations and virtually no advance warning to the American people that it was happening.

It was not only human rights groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights, but many in the military or retired from the
military who opposed the Graham amendment: Judge John Gibbons, who argued the landmark case Rasul v. Bush before the Supreme
Court; John Hutson, Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center and former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, and the National
Institute for Military Justice, among others, wrote open letters to the Senate to oppose the dismantling of habeas corpus..."

Usa/Iachr - Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Extends
Precautionary Measures on Guantánamo Detainees. (Int. Human Rights Law Clinic at American University of Washington;
Center for Constitutional Rights). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the Schell Center for International Human Rights at
Yale Law School, 12nov05

On November 2, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights extended precautionary measures for the men being held
indefinitely at Guantánamo Bay by the U.S. government.

Attorneys from the International Human Rights Clinic at American University's Washington College of Law and the Center for
Constitutional Rights had a hearing before the Commission on October 20th.

The Commission's measures included requests:

that the U.S. government ensure the detainees at Guantánamo are not transferred to countries where there are substantial
grounds for believing they would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other mistreatment;

that the U.S., in accordance with international law, not permit any statement obtained under torture to be used in a
legal proceeding;

that the government investigate and prosecute instances of abuse and torture, which does not mean letting the Department
of Defense continue to investigate itself; and

to have the legal status of the Guantánamo detainees determined by a competent tribunal, which has not been adequately
addressed by the military tribunals or the habeas corpus proceedings to date.

Usa - Pentagon thinking up scenarios for martial law in US.
(The Washington Post). Radio Nizkor, 10Aug05.

According to a report published on August 8, 2005 by the Washington Post, "the U.S. military has devised its first-ever
war plans for guarding against and responding to terrorist attacks in the United States, envisioning 15 potential crisis
scenarios and anticipating several simultaneous strikes around the country, according to officers who drafted the plans".

The report - elaborated by Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writer - says that "the classified plans, developed at
Northern Command headquarters, outline a variety of possible roles for quick-reaction forces estimated at as many as 3,000
ground troops per attack, a number that could easily grow depending on the extent of the damage and the abilities of civilian
response teams.

The possible scenarios range from "low end," relatively modest crowd-control missions to "high-end," full-scale disaster
management after catastrophic attacks such as the release of a deadly biological agent or the explosion of a radiological
device, several officers said"...

Usa - Opening of CIA records under Nazi War
Crimes Disclosure Act must continue, according to US Senate. Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of
the Schell Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School, 14Mar05

File
name

Real Media
format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

nazi

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:10:01

ENG

December 2004

Icc/Usa - President Bush signs anti-ICC Nethercutt Amendment and sanctions countries
that support the ICC. (American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the ICC; Citizens for
Global Solutions). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the Schell Center for International Human
Rights at Yale Law School, 20Dec04

On December 7, 2004 President Bush signed into effect the so-called Nethercutt Amendment,
which suspends Economic Support Fund assistance to States Parties to the International Criminal Court or
ICC who have not signed bilateral immunity agreements with the US.

What the Nethercutt Amendment does is exempt all U.S. nationals and contractors with the US from
accountability for widespread and systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed
on the territory of a signatory country.

On December 9th., 2004 the Dutch European Union Presidency made public its Declaration on the
Nethercutt amendment, regretting its adoption...

The US has deployed its anti-ICC efforts during previous congressional sessions. The House and the
Senate had approved on July 2002 another piece of legislation prohibiting US cooperation with the
International Criminal Court: the American Servicemembers' Protection Act or ASPA...

The Bush Administration has also been conducting a vigorous campaign of trying to conclude bilateral
international agreements that will remove US nationals from the reach of the Court. These are the
so-called "Article 98 bilateral agreements"...

Also recently, the US has deployed its anti-ICC efforts before the UN General Assembly, where the US
attempted to have the ICC taken off the UN General Assembly agenda. However, on November 19th, 2004, the
GA Sixth Committee (Legal) unanimously passed its resolution (and corrigendum) on the ICC without a
vote...When the GA Plenary adopted the resolution on December 2, 2004, the US delegation dissociated
itself from consensus on the resolution.

File
name

Real Media format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

iccus

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:19:20

ENG

Usa - Attorneys representing several
Guantanamo detainees challenge the Administration's effort to undermine Supreme Court's decision in
Rasul v. Bush. (Center for Constitutional Rights). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the
Schell Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School, 20Dec04.

On December 1st, 2004, the Center for Constitutional Rights asked two federal court judges to
forcefully reject the Bush Administration's effort to dismiss 12 Habeas Corpus petitions brought on
behalf of individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay.

In an extraordinary move, the government has essentially sought to overturn the decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court in the landmark case Rasul v. Bush.

On November 5th, 2004, a group of attorneys representing several Guantanamo detainees submitted a
Memorandum in opposition to the government's motion to dismiss the instant habeas petitions.

The Petitioners assert in their Memorandum the following:

that the President's exercise of his war powers is subject to judicial review

that the Supreme Court has already determined that the Guantanamo detainees have stated a claim

that pertinent case law, moreover, confirms that the detainees have due process rights under the
Constitution that they may vindicate through habeas actions.

that the detainees also have rights under the Geneva Conventions and other international law that
may be vindicated in a habeas action and,

that the detainees have common law rights that inhere in the habeas statute and do not depend upon
the cognizability of rights otherwise provided by the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United
States.

File name

Real Media
format

Mp3 format

Duration

Language

habeas

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:30:53

ENG

Usa - A coalition of civil liberties
groups filed a "friend of the court"
brief to overturn a controversial ruling on email privacy. (Electronic Privacy Information Center -
EPIC). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the Schell Center for International Human Rights at Yale
Law School, 08Dec04.

On November 12th. 2004, a coalition of civil liberties groups filed a "friend of the court" brief
encouraging the First Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a controversial ruling on email privacy.

The Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic
Privacy Information Center or "EPIC", American Library Association, American Civil
Liberties Union and Center for National Security Studies, argue in their brief that "the
panel's decision creates serious constitutional questions under the Fourth Amendment
guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure."

The issue in this case is whether an "intercept" of a communication occurred within the
meaning of the Wiretap Act. In other words, whether email can be "intercepted" in violation
of federal wiretap law while it is temporarily stored on an email server -- even if only for a
fraction of a second...

"On December 6, 2004, eight U.S. soldiers – five stationed in Iraq, two in Kuwait on their way to
Iraq, and one home on leave from Iraq about to be shipped back – filed a federal lawsuit challenging the
Armed Services' so-called "stop loss" policy, which would require them to serve beyond their enlistment
contracts...

Specialist Qualls and John Does 1 through 6 have each served out their full contracts but are being
forced to extend their service. Specialist Qualls and John Does 1 and 2 had enlisted in the “Try One”
program of the Army National Guard, which allows a veteran “to serve for only one year on a trial basis
before committing to full enlistment."

File name

Real Media
format

Mp3 format

Duration

Language

soldiers

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:06:10

ENG

Usa - US District Judge rules in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Geneva Conventions
protect those incarcerated at Guantánamo. Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the Schell
Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School,
07Dec04.

In a decision dated November 8, 2004, US District Judge James Robertson ruled that it is unlawful to
try prisoners detained at Guantánamo by the currently constituted Military Commissions.

"In his ruling on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Judge Robertson asserted that the Geneva Conventions - the
conventions signed by the United States and countries all over the world to govern the conduct of nations
during wartime - protect those incarcerated at Guantánamo."

According to the Court, all those arrested in or around the conflict in Afghanistan must be treated as
prisoners of war if there is any doubt as to their status.

Under the Geneva Conventions, prisoners of war must be provided the same legal process as the soldiers
in the armed forces of the capturing army. Mr. Hamdan, the petitioner in the case, is, therefore,
entitled to have his case heard by a properly convened military court or courts martial as defined under
United States law...

File name

Real Media
format

Mp3 format

Duration

Language

hamdan

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:23:31

ENG

November 2004

Usa - US District Judge rejected the government's increasing move toward secret and
coercive investigatory tactics in the post-9/11 environment. Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the
Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School, 12Nov04.

In the case of Doe and ACLU v. Ashcroft et al., US District Judge Victor Marrero ruled, on
September 28th, 2004, that "the compulsory, secret, and unreviewable production of information required
by the FBI's application of 18 U.S.C. § 2709 violates the Fourth Amendment, and that the non-disclosure
provision of 18 U.S.C. § 2709 (c) violates the First Amendment."

Plaintiffs in this case, "John Doe" - an internet access firm -, the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) and the American Civil Liberties Foundation, "challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2709.
That statute authorizes the Federal Bureau of Investigations to compel communications firms, such as
internet service providers (ISPs) or telephone companies, to produce certain customer records whenever
the FBI certifies that those records are "relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities".

The FBI demands under § 2709 are issued in the form of national security letters (NSLs), which
constitute a unique form of administrative subpoena cloaked in secrecy and pertaining to national
security issues. The statute bars all national security letters recipients from ever disclosing that the
FBI has issued an National Security Letter.

The Court concluded that § 2709 violates the Fourth Amendment because, at least as currently applied,
it effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge to the propriety of an National
Security Letter request. And also, that the permanent ban on disclosure contained in § 2709 (c) operates
as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech of the First Amendment.

"In general, as our sunshine laws and judicial doctrine attest, democracy abhors undue
secrecy, in recognition that public knowledge secures freedom. Hence, an unlimited government warrant to
conceal, effectively a form of secrecy per se, has no place in our open society.

Such a claim is especially inimical to democratic values for reasons borne out by painful experience.
Under the mantle of secrecy, the self-preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship
and secrecy may potentially be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction.

When withholding information from disclosure is no longer justified, when it ceases to foster the
proper aims that initially may have supported confidentially, a categorical and uncritical extension of
non-disclosure may become the cover for spurious ends that government may then deem too inconvenient,
inexpedient, merely embarrassing, or even illicit to ever expose to the light of day.

At that point, secrecy’s protective shield may serve not as much to secure a safe country as simply to
save face."

Usa - U.S. Southern Command (SouthCom) Struggles to Justify its Role in the War on
Terror. (Council On Hemispheric Affairs - COHA). Radio Nizkor with the collaboration of the Orville
H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights at Yale Law School, 11Oct04.

File
name

Real Media format

Mp3
format

Duration

Language

southcom

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:14:36

ENG

Usa - Update on the situation of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay and the current
status of legal issues relating to this matter. (By Richard Wilson). Radio Nizkor,
02oct04.

Richard Wilson is Professor of Law and Director of the International Human Rights Law Clinic at the American University of Washington and Equipo Nizkor collaborator.

Usa - U.S. Supreme Court recognizes that non-U.S. citizens may continue to sue their
abusers in U.S. federal court under the Alien Tort Claims Act. (Earth Rights International / Center
for Constitutional Rights). Radio Nizkor, 14Jul04.

Nombre del Fichero

Real Media
format

mp3 format

Duration

Language

atca

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:06:00

ENG

Usa - Supreme Court rules that foreign
terrorism suspects may use the US legal system to challenge their detention. (Center for
Constitutional Rights). Radio Nizkor, 07Jul04.

Usa - American Librarians and the ACLU oppose the Patriot Act and the Bush administration’s claim
that it should be made permanent. (American Library Association / American Civil Liberties Union).
Radio Nizkor, 06Jun04.

Nombre del Fichero

Formato Real
Player

Formato
mp3

Duración en
minutos

Idioma

patriot1

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:09:51

ENG

May 2004

Interview with Benjamin Ferencz, former Nuremberg Prosecutor and peace advocate. Radio Nizkor, 30May04.

Radio Nizkor has interviewed Benjamin Ferencz on a number of issues which concern the developments and current situation with regard to international law. Benjamin Ferencz is a former Nuremberg Prosecutor and a peace advocate. He is Adjunct Professor of International Law at Pace University and founder of the Pace Peace Center.

We have asked Benjamin Ferencz to tell us about the following:

His indictment in the Einsatzgruppen case and the "criminal organization" nature of these extermination units.

His analysis on the current situation surrounding the Internacional Criminal Court.

About the supreme crime of all international crimes, that is to say, the crime of aggression.

The US performance of going into war in Iraq leaving aside the UN.

The problems arising from the deterioration of civil liberties after 9/11, specially in the US.

Torture in Iraq.

This interview was recorded on May 24, 2004 using a Telos communication system between Radio Nizkor's studios in Madrid and New Rochelle, NY.

Usa - Torture scandal is "predictable result" of US detention policies and the related information must be disclosed. (Federation of American Scientists / American Civil Liberties Union). Radio Nizkor, 13may04.

File name

Real Player format

Mp3 format

Time (minutes)

Language

excep2

Click on icon

Click on icon

00:10:50

ENG

Usa/Irq - The World Organisation Against Torture calls for effective investigation into acts of torture in Iraq. (OMCT). Radio Nizkor, 06may04.

Gtmo - Resolution of
the International Federation of Human Rights on the Guantanamo Bay detainees.Statement approved
at the XXXV Congress of the FIDH, held in Quito, Ecuador, 2-6 March 2004. Radio Nizkor,
27mar04.

Nombre del
Fichero

Formato Real
Player

Formato
mp3

Duración en
minutos

Idioma

gtmoinfo2

Haz click aquí

Haz click aquí

00:05:25

ENG

Irq - Former UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, says that the Iraq war was illegal. (The Independent, UK). Radio Nizkor, 27Mar04.

US policy after 9/11: The situation of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay and the Inter-American Human Rights Commission Response.By Richard Wilson, Professor of Law and Director of the International Human Rights Law Clinic, American University Washington, D.C. Radio Nizkor, 13Feb04

Richard Wilson analyses the "legal black hole" surrounding the status of the Guantanamo detainees, as well as the question of precautionary measures that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has asked the US government to adopt.

The Commission decided during its 114th regular period of sessions to adopt precautionary measures on behalf of the Guantanamo detainees.
The Commission asserted that:

"....where persons find themselves within the authority and control of a state and where a circumstance of armed conflict may be involved, their fundamental rights may be determined in part by reference to international humanitarian law as well as international human rights law. Where it may be considered that the protections of international humanitarian law do not apply, however, such persons remain the beneficiaries at least of the non-derogable protections under international human rights law. In short, no person under the authority and control of a state, regardless of his or her circumstances, is devoid of legal protection for his or her fundamental and non-derogable human rights".

What is this "Legal Black Hole" and what is the executive branch's theory as to why these individuals are caught there?

"The US applies a perverse logic to conclude that all the individuals detained in Guantamo are 'unlawful combatants' ".

This is what Richard Wilson clearly explains us.

This speech was first recorded in Brussels (Belgium) on March 27, 2003; its digitization, production and online posting have been carried out by Radio Nizkor on February 22, 2004.

File name

Real Media
format

Mp3 format

Duration

Language

gtmo

Click on icon

Click on icon

01:00:32

ENG

Tecnical Data:

These audio documents have been posted in Real Audio and MP3 formats, their quality being equivalent to that of a CD-Rom.

If your connection speed does not allow you to listen to these files, we can send it to you by post in a CD-Rom. In this case, the production and shipment costs will be at your charge.